Search

Recent media portrayals link climate change skepticism to evolution skepticism, often as part of a larger "antiscience" tendency related to membership in conservative religious groups. Using national survey data, we examine the link between evolution skepticism and climate change skepticism, and consider religion's association with both. Our analysis shows a modest association between the two forms of skepticism along with some shared predictors, such as political conservatism, a lack of confidence in science, and lower levels of education. Evangelical Protestants also show more skepticism toward both evolution and climate change compared with the religiously unaffiliated. On the whole, however, religion has a much stronger and clearer association with evolution skepticism than with climate change skepticism. Results contribute to scholarly discussions on how different science issues may or may not interact, the role of religion in shaping perceptions of science, and how science policy makers might better channel their efforts to address environmental care and climate change in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eusociality is the most successful animal social system on earth. It is found in many social insects, a few crustacean species, and only three vertebrates: two African naked mole rats and human beings. Eusociality, so unusual for a vertebrate, is one of main factors leading to human beings becoming the most successful land vertebrate on earth by almost any measure. We are also unique in being the only land vertebrate with religions. Could the two be related? This article will present evidence, illustrated primarily with Judaism and Christianity, that these two seemingly unrelated social systems - eusociality and religion - that correlate temporally in our evolution, are possibly related. Evidence will also be presented that a (mostly) non-reproducing exemplar caste of celibate clergy was a eusocial-facilitating aspect of religion in western social evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores whether the religious background of students affects their opinions about and attitudes to engaging with scientific explanations of the origins of the universe and of life. The study took place in four English secondary schools representing three different contexts (Christian faith-based; non-faith with majority Muslim catchment; and non-faith, mixed catchment). It comprised questionnaires and focus groups with over 200 students aged 14–16, supplemented by teacher interviews. The analysis approach was informed by grounded theory and resulted in the development of an engagement typology, which has been set in the context of the cross-cultural border crossing literature. It divides students into categories depending on both the nature and amount of engagement they were prepared to have with the relationship between science and religion. The model takes into account where students sit on four dimensions. These assess whether a student's preferred knowledge base is belief-based or fact-based; their tolerance of uncertainty (do they have a need for resolution?); their open mindedness (are they unquestioning or inquiring?); and whether they conceptualise science and religion as being in conflict or harmony. Many Muslim students resisted engagement because of conflicting religious beliefs. Teachers did not always appreciate the extent to which this topic troubled some students who needed help to accommodate clashes between science and their religious beliefs. It is suggested that increased appreciation of the complexity represented by their students can guide a teacher towards an appropriate approach when covering potentially sensitive topics such as the theory of evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Electronic Turkish Studies is the property of Electronic Turkish Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The writings of two twentieth-century New York-based religious thinkers, Mordecai Kaplan and Hans Jonas, shared a common concern to find an alternative approach to the problem of evil in general and to the religious challenge of the Shoah in particular. For Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism, it was possible to draw upon his already well-developed, scientifically augmented (or inspired) revisions of the Jewish religion and the Jewish God. For the philosopher of technology, Jonas, the revisions to the traditional categories of Jewish theology arguably followed from his struggle to make some kind of moral sense of the Holocaust in the light of his interest in the biological emergence of selfhood. At the heart of the revisions of each, however, was a kind of cosmic evolutionism that necessitated an understanding of the origins of human ethics from an evolutionary perspective. While neither could be said to have demonstrated an intimate understanding of Darwinian theory (this is especially true of Kaplan), both viewed themselves as critically engaged with it and sought to utilize Darwin in offering accounts of a genocidal world that were neither entirely naturalistic nor entirely supernatural. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Religious studies assumes that religions are naturally occurring phenomena, yet what has scholarship uncovered about this fascinating dimension of the human condition? The manifold reports that classical scholars of religion have gathered extend knowledge, but such knowledge differs from that of scientific scholarship. Classical religious studies scholarship is expansive, but it is not cumulative and progressive. Bucking the expansionist trend, however, there are a small but growing number of researchers who approach religion using the methods and models of the life sciences. We use the biologist's distinction between 'proximate' and 'ultimate' explanations to review a sample of such research. While initial results in the biology of religion are promising, current limitations suggest the need for greater collaboration with classically trained scholars of religion. It might appear that scientists of religion and scholars of religion are strange bedfellows; however, progress in the scholarly study of religions rests on the extent to which members of each camp find a common intellectual fate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Religion and the New Atheism: A Critical Appraisal brings together scholars from a variety of disciplines (religious studies, sociology of religion, sociology of science, philosophy and theology) in order to critically engage with so-called 'new atheism'. The study is a collection of essays that not so much gives primacy to discrediting the limited scholarship of new atheist literature (although there is plenty of powerful critique to be found in its pages) but demonstrates where we can place new atheism in relation to generally more informed and intellectually rigorous debates about religion and atheism. This review essay examines their powerful arguments and briefly introduces possible Bhaskarian, Hegelian and Darwinian-Marxian contributions to the case against new atheism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The apparent contradictory relationship between Islam and evolution is important because it has been cited as an example of contradiction between religion and science by both thinkers in the West and Muslims. Muslim scholars and scientists mainly disagree with evolution's legitimacy. Islam's Quantum Question by Nidhal Guessoum is a unique narrative providing in one of its first chapters an overview of evolution from neo-Darwinists to creationists, including the views of scholars throughout Islamic history. Guessoum then proceeds to advocate for evolution. Drawing from Nidhal Guessoum's work, I highlight the reasons why there is an apparent contradiction between Islam and science-and, in particular, Islam and evolution-which include lack of freedom of thought and misinterpretation of the Qur'an. In doing so, I suggest setting the stage for a new Einsteinian theory of evolution, which involves the dimension of time and human cognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Islam's Quantum Question by Nidhal Guessoum offers a sophisticated approach to reconciling the results of modern science with Islamic tradition. The book provides a valuable critique of existing literature on Islam and science and advocates the promotion of good science and science education in the Muslim world. A central tension in the book revolves around Guessoum's efforts to promote a version of theistic science, while at the same establishing a clear boundary for science and scientific methodology. Although the latter works very well, the project of theistic science presented in the book is, at the very least, contentious. However, Islam's Quantum Question is a milestone in the literature on Islam and science and should be valuable for anyone interested in the search for meaning in both science and religion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines several fatwās by the important Muslim reformer Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā. It treats these fatwās as part of a broader Arabic debate on “materialism” at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. In this context, Riḍā's fatwās on materialism illustrate the changing nature of Islamic religious authority in this period, as new kinds of knowledge became available to new kinds of readers. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Biology has been able to systematize and order its vast information through the theory of evolution, offering the possibility of a more engaged dialogue and possible integration with religious insights and emotions. Using Judaism as a focus, this essay examines ways that contemporary evolutionary theory offers room for balancing freedom and constraint, serendipity and intentionality in ways fruitful to Jewish thought and expression. This essay then looks at a productive integration of Judaism and biology in the examples of co-evolution, environmental ethics, the place of humans within nature, the relationship of mind and brains, and the ways that individual and group identity blur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Warrant and Proper Function, Alvin Plantinga develops an argument designed to show that naturalism is self-defeating. One component of this larger argument is what I call Plantinga's belief-cum-desire argument, which is intended to establish something more specific: that if the content of our beliefs does causally effect behaviour (that is to say, semantic content is not epiphenomenal), and if naturalism and current evolutionary doctrine are correct, then the probability that we possess reliable cognitive mechanisms must be either inscrutable or low. This paper aims to refute Plantinga's belief-cum-desire argument. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study investigated three questions: (1) What are Lebanese secondary school (Grade 9-12) biology teachers' and university biology professors' positions regarding biological evolution?, (2) How do participants' religious affiliations relate to their positions about evolutionary science?, and (3) What are participants' positions regarding evolution education? Participants were 20 secondary school biology teachers and seven university biology professors. Seventy percent of the teachers and 60% of the professors were Muslim. Data came from semi-structured interviews with participants. Results showed that nine (Christian or Muslim Druze) teachers accepted the theory, five (four Muslim) rejected it because it contradicted religious beliefs, and three (Muslim) reinterpreted it because evolution did not include humans. Teachers who rejected or reinterpreted the evolutionary theory said that it should not be taught (three), evolution and creationism should be given equal time (two), or students should be allowed to take their own stand. Two professors indicated that they taught evolution explicitly and five said that they integrated it in other biology content. One Muslim professor said that she stressed 'the role of God in creation during instruction on evolution'. It seems that years of studying and teaching biology have not had a transformative effect on how a number of teachers and professors think about evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Afterword looks back over both parts of the discussion of “God and the World of Signs”—“Semiotics and the Emergence of Life” in the previous issue of Zygon and “Semiotics and Theology” in this issue. Three central questions in this extended debate are identified: What is the nature of biological organisms and biological evolution? What is the relationship between the natural world and the Triune God of the Christian theological tradition? What should be the goals of Science/Religion Studies? I summarize the answers that Christopher Southgate and Andrew Robinson have given in their program and the challenges raised by their critics. Their strengths and weaknesses are assessed. In the conclusion I ask readers to imagine that this particular research program were to be taken as a model program in science-and-religion research (with some tweaking) and then consider the features of the program that could function as standards for scholars working in other areas of the dialogue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay on the evolutionary adaptation of religion is presented. The author believes that religion is an evolutionary adaptation in response to the need to maintain vital aspects of human behavior. The culturally determined paths of human behavior seem to have been seen nearly invariably in the form of religious prescriptions. A religion should defend its prescription and should not be totally tolerant of the prescription of other religions.

Religion, like science, seeks to thematize reality. But they differ in what they abstract from: Religions focus on values; often, ultimates. The sciences seek causes, typically, proximate causes. Territorial disputes, then, are misguided, and scientism errs in seeking to displace religion. For science, as Goodheart explains, does not replace what it seeks to understand. Monotheists find goodness, beauty, love, truth, and wisdom in nature, and affirm an infinite Goodness as their ultimate Source. Neither Big Bang cosmology nor neodarwinism competes with that idea. Medieval creationists would have welcomed the evidence for an initial singularity, as confirmation of the soundness of their quest for a self-sufficient Being behind the world’s contingency. Evolution, far from displacing creation, addresses the how of nature’s emergence, just as scripture looks to its ultimate worth. Resistance to evolution is misguided, and Intelligent-Design is tactically and strategically unwise: It relies on a god-of-the-gaps, rather than recognize the ubiquity of God’s creativity and generosity. But the kernel of truth in I-D lies in the sense of wonder that religion shares with science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this summary of my recent book (Kirkpatrick, 2004), I outline a general theoretical approach for the psychology of religion and develop one component of it in detail. First I review arguments and research demonstrating the utility of attachment theory for understanding many aspects of religious belief and behavior, particularly within modern Christianity. I then introduce evolutionary psychology as a general paradigm for psychology and the social sciences, arguing that religion is not an adaptation in the evolutionary sense but rather a byproduct of numerous psychological systems that evolved for other adaptive purposes, of which the attachment system is just one example. I conclude by summarizing numerous advantages of this framework over other extant approaches to the psychology of religion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kirkpatrick's contribution is evaluated in the context of historical developments and persistent crisis in the psychology of religion. The field has been characterized by the lack of a unifying theory, as well as by some literature being driven by religious apologetics. Kirkpatrick's approach has been truly theory-driven, always seeking a general psychological framework for analyzing religion and religiosity. His personal odyssey led him to embrace Bowlby's attachment theory, which has had a unique impact of research in academic psychology. But then Kirkpatrick demonstrates his honesty and courage in realizing that the attachment framework was less than adequate for the task of unifying the field. Instead, he invites us to join him in embracing the broader framework of cognitive-evolutionary theory, which should serve as the unifying framework for the field. I concur with his judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though early ideas of evolution saw it as progressive, most modern theories see it as a random walk. The theories of Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Edward O. Wilson, Stuart Kauffman, Steven Rose, and Robert Wesson are surveyed, showing their agreement on the fact of evolution but not on the mechanism. Evolution is an incomplete theory. Any theology should therefore be based only on its broadest features. Generally, evolution is the development of complex forms from simple ancestors. Within a Christian context, it can be seen as a journey toward the unification of all things in Christ, the ultimate complexity.. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]